Jeffery Klaehn

Model Construction: Various Other Epistemological Concerns A Reply to John Corner's Commentary on the Propaganda Model

At the outset of his commentary, Corner states that he is considering ‘issues concerning the model as theory’. Subsequent to this, he argues that Herman and Chomsky do not offer a theory of media/state/market relations. He returns to this point again towards the conclusion of his commentary and here characterizes the propaganda model as ‘a broad checklist of downflow tendencies’. Corner then proceeds to suggest that the notion of a ‘model’ is overly ‘ambitious’ in the case of the propaganda model. What is missing from this discussion throughout is the considerable empirical evidence supportive of the explanatory logic of the propaganda model. There is a growing body of literature and empirical research which provides considerable strong evidence supportive of the propaganda model’s central hypotheses (see, for example, Klaehn, 2002a; Winter, 1992, 1998, 2002; McMurtry, 1998; Lee and Solomon, 1990; Gunn, 1994). As a sociologist, I find the central methodological

Corporate hegemony : a critical assessment of the globe and mail's news coverage of near-genocide in occupied East Timor, 1975-1980

The study asks whether the news coverage accorded the near-genocide in East Timor by the Globe and Mail(G&M) followed the predictions of the ‘propaganda model’ (PM) of media operations laid out and applied by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky in Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media.The research asks whether the G&Ms news coverage of the near-genocide in East Timor and of Canadas ‘aiding and abetting’ of ‘war crimes’ and ‘crimes against humanity’ in occupied East Timor was hegemonic or ideologically serviceable given Canadas (geo)political-economic interests in Indonesia throughout the invasion and occupation periods. Did the news coverage provide a political and historical benchmark by which to inform the Canadian public (or not) and influence (or not) Canadian government policy on Indonesia and East Timor?

Book Review: EDWARD S. HERMAN AND NOAM CHOMSKY Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. New York: Pantheon, 2002, 412 pp., ISBN 0—3757—14499:

Mass media play an especially important role in democratic societies. They are presupposed to act as intermediary vehicles that reflect public opinion, respond to public concerns and make the electorate cognizant of state policies, important events and viewpoints. The fundamental principles of democracy depend upon the notion of a reasonably informed electorate. Herman and Chomsky’s ‘propaganda model’ of media operations (PM) as laid out and applied in the new edition of Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (2002) hypothesizes that elite media interlock with other institutional sectors in ownership, management and social circles, effectively circumventing their ability to remain analytically detached from the power structure of society, of which they themselves are presumed to be integral parts. The net result of this, the PM contends, is self-censorship without significant coercion. The PM constitutes an institutional critique of media performance and theorizes media performance as an outcome of market forces. It concedes that the powerful have individual objectives but presumes that dominant elites share common political, economic and social interests. It presumes that media behaviour will reflect these interests in ways that are ‘functional’ for dominant elites and social institutions. The PM, initially referred to as a ‘general theory of the Free Press’, contends that the America’s elite agenda-setting media play an important role in establishing cultural hegemony, primarily by establishing a general framework for news discourse that is typically adhered to by lower tiered media. The PM theorizes that media serve ‘political interests’, ‘mobilize’ (or not) sympathetic emotion for victims and outrage against victimizers, and routinely ‘divert’ public attention away from some stories and news items while concurrently directing attention toward others (see also Chomsky, 1989). The model postulates that media routinely make selection choices that establish and define ‘worthy’ and ‘unworthy’ issues. It predicts there will be